National Action
were proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. At the time, Amber Rudd – the
then Home Secretary - described National
Action as “a racist, Antisemitic and homophobic organisation which
stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology”. Rudd added
that “it has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone…” and that
it was “…concerned in terrorism”. The ban was the first time in British history
that membership of a radical-right group had been outlawed, and meant that it
wold become a crime to be a member of National Action, to invite support for
the group, to be involved in the organisation of group activities, to wear
clothing or insignia linked to it, or to carry its symbols.

Prior to its proscription,
there was little information about National Action. While groups those such as
Britain First and the English Defence League had been courting public and media
attention, National Action were mobilising largely under the radar. Hope
Not Hate reported that the group’s members were becoming
increasingly provocative, erratic and unpredictable. Expressing a penchant for
violence and direct action was also evident, none more so than in its statement
on its now defunct website that National Action was “not
afraid to swing the bat at the enemy”.

Known to be
targeting a youth audience – apparent from the
ages of those recently arrested – National Action was unequivocally
traditionalist in its ideology, which included overt expressions of
ultra-nationalism, racism, Antisemitism, disablism, homophobia, anti-liberalism
and anti-capitalism. Prone to admiring and glorifying Hitler and what it believed
were the great achievements of the Third Reich, the group advocated a similar
approach here as being necessary to ‘save’ Britain, ‘our’ race and ‘our’
generation. Its ultimate goal was the establishment
of a ‘white homeland’ in Britain.

Somewhat
unsurprisingly, National
Action denied being an extremist group. Citing the legislation, it
argued that to be extremist it would need to use or encourage illegal violence
or terrorism to achieve its goals. Arguing that it was radical rather than
extreme, it countered by arguing that to achieve its ultimate goal it would need
to do so through state power and was thereby committed to working with the
state’s institutions, including the police, army and intelligence services. In
contrast to these denunciations, earlier this year National Action’s former
spokesperson Jack Renshaw pleaded guilty
to preparing an act of terrorism by purchasing a machete to kill the Labour
Member of Parliament Rosie Cooper. He also admitted making threats to kill
Detective Constable Victoria Henderson, who had been investigating him for
child grooming and racial hatred offences.

One concern is
that proscribing such organisations does not stop members from regrouping under
a different alias. National Action members have since done so using the aliases
of Scottish Dawn, NS131 (National Socialist Anti-Capitalist Action), System
Resistance Network (SRN) and Vanguard Britannia. The same weakness ss of
proscription as a solution can be seen with Al-Muhajiroun. Banned in 2005, its
members continued to regroup and used various aliases including the Saved Sect,
Call to Submission, Islam4UK, Islamic Path, London School of Sharia and
Need4Khilafah up until 2014. Subsequently Al-Muhajiroun’s members were shown to
be linked
to more than half of all Islamist-inspired terror in the UK.

In response,
however the police and intelligence services appear to have been somewhat more
proactive in their pursuance of those members of National Action that have
continued to be active. Given some were known to be increasingly erratic,
unpredictable and prone to violence, the successful arrest and conviction of
members may be evidence that necessary lessons have been learned. It’s also
likely that National Action’s members underestimated the willingness of the
police and intelligence services to act on the ban .

The result has
been a far more effective outcome than I and indeed others anticipated two
years ago. My concerns that banning National Action – especially if perceived to
be unfair, gerrymandering to the left or appeasing Muslims – might have the
potential to either strengthen the radical right or make it more appealing, do
not seem to have materialised – not least because there appears to be as little
agreement and consensus within the British radical right as ever. In truth,
there has been very little public sympathy shown towards National Action from
either inside or outside the radical right milieu. Importantly, it could be
argued that proscription has sent a very clear message to radical right
extremists. Maybe this is why Britain’s radical right is increasingly moving
towards more populist ideologies or mobilising behind distractionary and normalising
fronts such as defending
free speech.

So while banning
National Action has been far more effective than expected, proscription is only
one part of the armoury needed in the fight against the radical right and its
divisive ideologies.

openDemocracy has worked for two years investigating the dark money driving Brexit. We have many more leads to chase down, but need your support to keep going. Please give what you can today – it makes a difference.

Comments

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. If you have any queries about republishing please contact us. Please check individual images for licensing details.